J. Clarke writes:
[A one-liner at the bottom. Sorry for leaving so much in, but I'm
going to have to do much the same. DS]
On 26 Feb 2007 21:28:52 -0600, D Smith wrote:
Mark & Juanita writes:
Maybe one of the things to ask is what would *not* be evidence of global
warming, and most especially man-caused global warming? Seems that no
matter what the weather pattern or weather event, it is all cited as
"evidence of global warming".
Not in the scientific literature. At least, not on a single-event
level. The predictions made by theory are general in nature - changes in
means, changes in range, changes in frequency. You cannot estimate any of
these based on a single event.
More hurricanes than normal? Global warming
coming home to roost. Less hurricanes than normal? Evidence of the
extremes in weather patterns due to global warming.
I'm not aware of exactly what scientific predictions are made for
hurricane frequency (although I think it is generally accepted that
warmer ocean temperatures will increase the likelihood of stronger
hurricanes), but:
IF the prediction is that hurricane frequency will become more VARIABLE
from year-to-year, then seeing years with either MORE or LESS than
previously seen would be consistent with that prediction.
...and remember, Dr. Gray, the emminent hurricane researcher who does
NOT believe if anthopogenic global warming, is one of the people that
incorrectly predicted that 2006 would be a bad year for hurricanes. It
looks like *everyone* got that one wrong.
Hotter summers than
normal? Of course, global warming. Colder winter than normal? Again,
evidence of the extremes being caused by global warming.
Well, increased extremes in temperature and precipitation has been one
of the predictions. I heard that being said back in the 1970s.
Once again, it is erroneous to try to assess that change in frequency
on the basis of a single event, but when scientists do time-series
analysis on the entire record (say, past 150 years at most), then the
results are consistent with there being a very recent shift, consistent
with the scientific predictions.
So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
That's a strawman. Probably not of your own making, but it is a
strawman.
the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence of a
theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to start
questioning the person postulating the theory.
Stop reading the crap in the media, and start looking at what the
scientists are actually saying. Try starting at http://www.ipcc.ch.
Things that would tend to disprove anthropogenic global warming theory:
- measurements showing that CO2 does not absorb IR radiation - i.e. it
is not a "greenhouse gas". (Easy to show in a lab that it does.)
- measurement that show that atmospheric CO2 is not rising (many
measurements in many parts of the world show that it is)
- an alternative theory to explain why the mean earth
surface temperature is about 15C, instead of the -18C it would be expected
to be without an atmosphere. (Note: this would disprove "greenhouse
theory" in general, not just the expectation that increasing CO2 will lead
to an increase in the natural greenhouse effect.)
- measurments that show that - all other known factors being accounted
for - there is NO global mean temperature increase can relates to the
increase in atmopheric CO2. (After accounting for other known factors such
as solar output, atmospheric dust, volcanoes, and a few other things,
there remains an increase in temperature over the past few decades that is
of about the same magnitude as that predicted by "global warming theory".)
- an alternative theory that the earth's radiation imbalance with space
caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 will be compensated for by a
mechanism that WON'T lead to surface warming. (A few have been
hypothesized, but data has generally shown them to be incorrect.)
You seem to have formed a rather strong opinion based on a very limited
knowledge of the dicipline. How much are you interested in learning?
I'm sorry, but none of those address the "anthropogenic" issue. All
of those points you make are equally consistent with a completely
natural cause.
All of those address our understanding of climate, in particlar the
role of greenhouse (IR-absorbing) gases.
There is no legitimate scientific debate that the increase in
atmospheric CO2 is almost entirely due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Therefore, the only issues that remain are related to the effects of the
CO2 on climate.
I am going to repeat some questions orignally posted a few weeks ago by
Bob Grumbine in another group. (He hosts the web site I referred to in
another post.) Please tell me which of the following points you disagree
with:
There is a greenhouse effect
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over
the past 150 years
The source of that increase is human activity
Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
increases, climate warms
The global surface temperature record shows the last 20 years to have
been warmer than the previous 100.
I'll also ask the same question Bob asked when he raised the points:
If you disagree, what is your scientific basis for disagreement?
[No, I won't have to go back to Bob for answers - I'll respond directly if
you post a followup]